DO  WE  WANT  RIFLE  PRACTICE 
IN  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS? 


Answers  by  President  Eliot, 
Professor  John  Dewey,  Andrew 
Carnegie,  Jane  Addams,  Ed- 
ward Everett  Heile,  and  Others. 


PEACE  ASSOCIATION  OF  FRIENDS 
20  SOUTH  TWELFTH  STREET 
PHILADELPHIA 


^tAy03  rn.B.s, 


'3^\.TS3 

A_ 


DO  WE  WANT  RIFLE  PRACTICE  IN  THE 
PUBLIC  SCHOOLS? 


The  proposal  to  introduce  rifle  practice  into  our  public 
schools  has  been  made  recently  with  such  seriousness  and 
from  such  high  quarters  as  to  demand  attention  from  all 
interested  in  the  progress  and  welfare  of  our  schools. 

The  following  pages  contain  the  opinions  of  some  of  the 
most  prominent  educators  and  leaders  of  thought  in  the  United 
States  in  regard  to  this  proposal.  These  opinions  are  mostly 
from  replies  to  a recent  letter  asking  for  an  expression  on  the 
subject. 

The  advocates  of  systematic  rifle  practice  for  boys  as  part 
of  the  public  school  curriculum  urge  that  a nation  of  trained 
marksmen  is  a valuable  preparation  for  war.  They  assume  that 
training  a nation  for  the  practice  of  war  is  of  greater  importance 
than  training  a nation  for  the  practice  of  peace,  thus  seeming  to 
ignore  the  broader  pedagogical  and  practical  aspects  of  the 
question. 

The  views  of  the  eminent  men  and  women  who  have  con- 
tributed to  this  pamphlet  are  presented  for  the  deliberate  con- 
sideration of  those  to  whom  the  management  of  our  schools  is 
entrusted. 


/ 


GOVERNOR  CHARLES  E.  HUGHES 

From  a Speech  delivered  in  New  York  City,  1907. 

“ We  can  no  longer  look  to  war  for  the  development 
of  either  national  or  individual  character.  The  heroics  of 
war  have  been  replaced  by  mathematical  calculations.  If 
it  was  ever  anything  else,  it  is  now  unmitigated  horror, 
exhibiting  chiefly  fiendish  aspects  of  ingenuity  and  scientific 
skill  in  destruction.  Under  our  modern  conditions  of 
civilization  the  supposed  beneficent  results  of  war  in  the 
development  of  courage  and  stamina  must  in  any  con- 
ceivable event  be  shared  by  so  few  of  our  teeming  popu- 
lations that  even  the  most  sanguinary  must  realize  that  the 
time  has  gone  by,  when,  by  any  stretch  of  imagination  it 
can  be  regarded  as  a general  disciplinary  agent.  And  in 
the  controversies  of  peace  and  in  the  bloodless  struggles 
for  the  maintenance  of  truth  and  justice  in  our  personal 
and  civic  relations  must  be  found  the  arena  of  the  future 
in  which  character  may  find  severer  tests  than  ever  were 
aflForded  by  historic  battlefield.” 


2 


CHARLES  W.  ELIOT, 

President  of  Harvard  University. 

^^Rifle  practice  seems  to  me  unsuitable  for  school  exercise, 
because  the  pupils  are  not  old  enough  for  it,  even  if  it  were  a 
desirable  form  of  bodily  training.  Military  drill,  quite  apart 
from  rifle  practice,  seems  to  me  one  of  the  poorest  forms  of 
bodily  exercise,  very  inferior  to  most  gymnasium  exercises,  and 
to  all  free  sports.  There  is  too  much  routine  and  automatic 
action  in  it,  and  too  much  repression  of  individual  freedom. 
The  only  good  part  of  it  is  the  setting-up  drill,  which  can  easily 
be  made  a gymnastic  exercise  without  military  accompaniments. 
Rifle  practice  is  in  my  judgment,  only  fit  for  an  elective  exer- 
cise at  the  college  or  technical  school  age.  At  that  time  it 
interests  profitably  some  young  men  who  feel  the  hunting  instinct 
or  who  mean  to  serve  in  the  militia.  Even  then  it  is  a difficult 
exercise  to  maintain,  because  it  requires  the  use  of  an  expensive 
and  perhaps  distant  range. 

‘‘You  will  observe  that  I am  opposed  to  rifle  practice  be- 
cause it  seems  to  me,  on  general  pedagogic  principles,  unsuitable 
and  untimely  in  the  public  schools.” 

HENRY  CHURCHILL  KING, 

President  of  Oberlin  College. 

“I  should  be  sorry  to  see  rifle  practice  introduced  into  the 
public  schools  of  the  country.  I think  the  evils  would  largely 
outweigh  the  advantages.” 

DAVID  STARR  JORDAN, 

President  of  Leland  Stanford  Junior  University. 

“I  do  not  think  that  accurate  shooting  necessarily  makes 
for  militarism.  I do  not,  however,  believe  in  the  introduction  of 
rifle  practice  in  the  public  school  curriculum.” 


3 


ISAAC  SHARPLESS, 
President  of  Haverford  College. 


‘‘I  should  deplore  the  introduction  of  rifle  practice  or  any 
other  practice  which  would  tend  to  develop  a military  spirit  in 
the  public  schools  of  the  country.  The  tendencies  of  the  age 
are  toward  industrial  and  international  peace,  and  any  block  in 
this  progress  is  a serious  menace  to  the  ultimate  prosperity  and 
standards  of  the  country. 

‘‘I  was  somewhat  surprised  and  quite  delighted  to  find,  in  a 
recent  visit  at  Cambridge  University,  England,  that  these  senti- 
ments were  largely  shared  by  educated  Englishmen  and  that  the 
tendency  to  discourage  rifle  practice  was  quite  marked.” 


PROFESSOR  SAMUEL  T.  DUTTON, 

Teachers  College,  Columbia  University. 

‘T  am  decidedly  opposed  to  introducing  rifle  practice  into  city 
public  or  private  schools.  I believe  there  are  other  forms  of 
physical  and  mental  training  which  are  better  for  young  people 
and  that  the  use  of  a rifle  under  any  circumstances  by  children 
should  be  a matter  to  be  controlled  by  parents  only. 

‘‘There  are  several  objections  to  the  introduction  of  rifle 
practice  into  schools.  One  is  that  the  use  of  dangerous  weapons 
in  any  kind  of  sport  does  not  need  to  be  stimulated.  It  is 
attended  with  a certain  element  of  danger  and  in  many  ways 
needs  to  be  restrained  rather  than  encouraged.  Secondly,  to  in- 
troduce this  form  of  activity  implies  that  as  a nation,  we  are 
likely  to  go  to  war.  No  sane  person  believes  that  under  present 
conditions  there  is  any  need  of  war.  A sufficient  army  and  navy 
for  police  duty  can  be  provided,  and  this,  supplemented  by  the 
state  militia,  is  enough.” 


4 


PROFESSOR  JOHN  DEWEY, 

Columbia  University. 

would  be  a long  step  backward  in  the  traditions  of  the 
American  people  and  of  American  education  to  introduce  rifle 
practice  into  our  public  schools.  Aside  from  the  general  objec- 
tions from  the  standpoint  of  civilization,  humanity  and  moral 
progress,  which  ought  to  be  absolutely  final,  the  objections  from 
the  standpoint  of  school  administration  and  discipline  are  most 
serious.  It  would  introduce  another  distracting  factor  where 
high-school  boys  are  already  over  distracted  and  stimulated,  and 
would  increase  the  evil  force  of  the  exciting  and  distracting 
conditions  that  already,  especially  in  our  cities,  are  more  than 
powerful  enough.  It  is  undemocratic,  barbaric,  and  scholastic- 
ally  wholly  unwise.” 

PROFESSOR  CHARLES  ZUEBLIN, 

University  of  Chicago. 

^‘Rifle  practice  in  the  public  schools  would  be  peculiarly  ab- 
horrent to  me.  I hope  our  schools  may  instil  ideals  of  peace.  As 
disarmament  seems  at  present  utopian,  I think  the  Swiss  military 
system,  demanding  one  year  of  each  able-bodied  man,  might  be 
utilized  to  develop  skill  of  marksmanship  of  mature  men,  whose 
main  activities  would  be  useful  work  for  the  government.  But 
athletics  and  manual  training  are  infinitely  preferable  in  the 
schools.” 


JANE  ADDAMS, 

Hull-House,  Chicago. 

‘^I  am  of  course  shocked  at  any  proposition  to  introduce 
rifle  practice  into  the  public  schools. 


5 


‘‘The  increasing  number  of  accidents  and  murders  due  to 
the  totally  unnecessary  and  illegal  ‘carrying  of  concealed 
weapons,’  makes  it  difficult  to  understand  why  familiarity  with 
fire  arms  should  be  encouraged.  If  war  is  to  continue,  at  least 
let  us  insist  that  the  use  of  fire  arms  shall  be  confined  to  the 
soldier,  as  strictly  as  the  surgeon’s  knife  is  limited  to  the  man 
professionally  prepared  to  use  it.” 

CAROLINE  HAZARD, 

President  of  Wellesley  College. 

“I  shall  be  very  sorry  to  have  rifle  practice,  or  anything 
which  involves  the  use  of  arms,  introduced  into  our  public 
schools.  The  modern  custom  of  having  toy  pistols  as  play- 
things for  young  boys,  seems  to  me  a most  injurious  one,  and  if 
it  should  be  carried  farther,  and  practice  in  fire  arms  included  as 
part  of  the  school  education,  it  seems  to  me  a decided  step  would 
be  taken  in  the  wrong  direction. 

“We  are  better  situated  than  any  country  in  the  world  almost, 
to  maintain  peace  with  our  neighbors,  and  the  thought  of  war  and 
strife  should  not  be  made  a familiar  one  to  our  young  people.” 


MARY  E.  WOOLLEY, 

President  of  Mount  Holyoke  College. 

“You  are  quite  right  in  thinking  that  I believe  that  the  in- 
troduction of  rifle  practice  into  our  school  system  would  be  a 
backward  step,  and  a real  menace  to  the  progress  of  the  peace 
movement.  I cannot  see  that  there  is  anything  to  be  said  in 
favor  of  its  introduction,  while  I feel  that  the  strongest  arguments 
may  be  urged  against  it. 

“It  seems  to  me,  first,  a waste  of  money,  when  the  schools 
of  the  country  are  often  handicapped  by  the  lack  of  suitable 


6 


buildings,  sufficient  equipment,  and  adequate  salaries  for  the 
teachers.  Secondly,  I believe  that  it  is  a waste  of  time.  There 
is  constant  complaint  that  students  are  overcrowded  with  work 
and  have  not  time  for  recreation  and  physical  exercise.  Rifle 
practice  certainly  would  not  give  the  best  sort  of  physical  exer- 
cise, or  the  kind  of  recreation  which  is  desirable.  Its  influence 
in  promoting  a spirit  of  warfare,  rather  than  of  peace,  goes  with- 
out saying.” 


LUCIA  AMES  MEAD, 

Boston. 

^^So  far  as  I know,  no  nation  has  yet  used  its  people’s  taxes 
to  teach  school  boys  the  art  of  killing.  The  training  has  no 
pedagogic  value.  It  would  cost  money,  sorely  needed  to  teach 
the  use  of  the  tools  of  industry,  to  prepare  for  the  perennial  fight 
against  pauperism,  disease  and  crime. 

‘‘Rifle  shooting  in  the  schools  would  be  an  unprecedented 
measure,  implying  some  new  national  danger  to  justify  it.  No 
such  danger  exists  except  in  the  minds  of  yellow  journalists  and 
some  military  men.  For  119  years  we  have  had  only  five  years 
of  war  with  foreign  powers,  and  were  invaded  only  in  1812. 
We  no  longer  fear  England,  for  we  leave  our  northern  frontier 
unguarded.  We  have  no  quarrel  with  any  nation  and  our  real 
enemies  are  those  within  our  midst.  Teach  the  power  of 
organized  ostracism  as  a substitute  for  guns  ; a nation  that  feeds 
Europe  ninety  days  a year  can  always  bring  a force  to  bear  far 
greater  than  a navy.  Neutralize  our  Philippines,  and  we  shall 
need  no  more  guns  to  defend  our  western  shores  ; establish  peace 
budgets,  and  with  the  wise  expenditure  of  one  dollar  for  concilia- 
tion for  every  thousand  spent  on  war,  we  can  substitute  methods 
for  winning  friends  for  methods  of  killing  suppositious  enemies.” 


7 


NATHAN  C.  SCHAEFFER 
Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  in  Pennsylvania. 


Extract  from  his  Inaugural  Address  as  resident  of  the  National  Educational  Association, 
Los  Angeles,  1907. 


^‘Peace  has  become  so  great  a shibboleth  that  the  introduc- 
tion of  rifle  practice  into  the  public  schools  is  now  advocated  as 
a peace  measure.  The  experience  of  our  recent  wars,  it  is  held, 
has  pointed  out  that,  while  there  is  no  difliculty  in  case  of  war 
in  getting  all  the  volunteers  that  the  country  requires,  and  they 
can  be  given  a reasonable  amount  of  drill  in  a few  weeks,  it 
takes  them  a long  time  to  learn  to  shoot,  and  that  unless  they 
can  shoot  accurately  they  are  of  little  value  as  soldiers.  If, 
however,  the  young  men  who  are  graduating  from  our  high 
schools  in  the  different  States  should  be  skilled  riflemen,  the 
country  can  rest  content  with  a small  standing  army,  knowing 
that  in  case  of  war  it  can  put  into  the  field  at  short  notice  a 
force  of  volunteers  whose  skill  in  rifle  shooting  will  make  them 
to  be  fully  the  equal  of  any  army  which  may  be  brought  against 
them.  The  system  is  therefore  a great  factor  for  national  peace. 
As  a teacher  from  the  State  which  William  Penn  founded,  I 
must  put  a big  interrogation  point  after  this  theory.  The  fact 
that  boys  at  the  age  of  thirteen  can  learn  to  shoot 
with  marvelous  accuracy  should  be  correlated  with  the  fact 
that  at  the  same  age,  and  even  earlier,  boys  can  be  taught 
all  sorts  of  break-neck  acrobatics ; no  one  would,  on  account 
of  the  skill  which  may  thus  be  acquired,  be  justified  in  ad- 
vocating the  introduction  of  either  acrobatics  or  rifle  practice 
into  the  curriculum  of  our  public  schools.  There  is  a 
limitation  to  the  kinds  of  skill  which  a human  being  may 
acquire,  and  the  development  of  skill  in  these  directions  inter- 


8 


feres  seriously  with  the  development  of  skill  in  other  and  more 
useful  lines.  The  development  of  skill  in  shooting  is  desirable 
on  the  part  of  those  who  join  the  army  or  the  State  con- 
stabulary ; but  if  during  a strike  every  striker  were  a skilled 
rifleman,  the  difliculties  in  maintaining  order  would  be  infinitely 
multiplied.” 


From  MRS.  HARRY  HASTINGS, 

New  York  City. 

^^The  brutalizing  effect  of  this  rifle  practice,  if  it  becomes 
general,  is  only  a question  of  time  ; its  antagonism  to  the 
Peace  Cause  is  indisputable.” 


EDMUND  A.  JONES, 

State  Commissioner  of  Common  Schools,  Columbus,  Ohio. 

have  just  returned  from  the  Peace  Conference  in  New 
York,  and  you  may  naturally  infer  that  I am  not  much  in  favor 
of  military  instruction  in  our  public  schools.  I can  readily  see 
that  some  advantages  may  result  to  our  boys  in  an  erect  and 
manly  bearing  from  a military  drill  in  marching,  etc.,  but  I do 
not  believe  it  is  advisable  to  place  rifles  in  the  hands  of  boys  of 
thirteen  years  and  over  in  our  public  schools.  I served  in  the 
civil  war  and  was  wounded  in  the  defense  of  my  country  at  that 
time,  but  I believe  we  have  reached  a time  in  our  civilization 
when  international  difliculties  can  be  settled  by  arbitration  with- 
out the  horrors  and  sacrifices  of  war.” 


9 


MASON  S.  STONE, 

Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  in  Vermont. 

‘‘I  wish  to  state  that  we  advise  peace  rather  than  war,  and 
while  we  are  in  favor  of  physical  training,  nevertheless  we  are 
not  enthusiastic  over  military  drill  in  the  public  schools.” 


FRANCIS  G.  BLAIR, 

Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  in  Illinois. 

hope  sincerely  that  no  such  thing  is  contemplated.” 
(He  refers  to  arrangement  for  target  shooting  in  the  public 
schools  by  the  national  government.) 


GEO.  H.  MARTIN, 

* State  Board  of  Education,  Boston,  Mass. 

‘H  am  entirely  opposed  to  any  further  development  of  the 
military  spirit  among  school  boys.” 


J.  H.  FUQUA,  Sr., 

Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  in  Kentucky. 

don’t  think  our  authorities  would  favor  such  a move,(i.  e. 
the  introduction  of  rifle  practice),  as  we  desire  to  teach  the  principles 
of  peace,  and  not  encourage  in  the  youth  a sentiment  for  war,” 


10 


ANDREW  CARNEGIE, 

New  York  City. 

‘^The  introduction  of  rifle  practice  into  the  public  schools 
would  be  a step  backward.  What  ought  to  be  taught  is  that 
war  is  savagery,  unworthy  of  civilized  man.” 


JOHN  H.  CONVERSE, 

Philadelphia. 

‘^Believing,  as  I do,  that  the  education  of  children  as 
supported  by  public  taxation,  should  be  confined  as  far  as  possible 
to  essentials,  I am  not  in  favor  of  any  special  features  such  as 
instruction  in  rifle  practice  in  our  public  schools.” 


EDWARD  EVERETT  HALE. 

Washington,  D.  C. 

‘‘I  am  quite  sure  that  the  public  schools  fail  in  their  duty 
unless  the  boys  and  girls  are  trained  in  respect  to  their  superiors, 
in  obedience  to  those  in  authority,  in  courtesy  in  address,  in 
kindness  to  all.  The  New  Testament  sums  up  such  training 
when  it  says  ‘ The  wisdom  from  above  is  first  pure.’ 

Personal  Purity  is  the  foundation. 

2.  Next.  This  ^ wisdom  is  peaceable.’ 

Rifle  practice  is  certainly  not  peaceable. 

3.  This  ‘ wisdom  is  gentle.’ 

‘^If  you  care  for  what  the  Apostle  said,  he  meant,  that  the  gen- 
tleman is  one  who  abstains  somewhat  from  demanding  all  his  rights. 

^‘The  gentleman  is  more  glad  to  give  than  to  receive.” 


11 


JOHN  W.  FOSTER, 

Former  Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C. 

‘‘I  should  regard  any  recommendation  for  the  introduction 
of  rifle  practice  into  the  public  schools  of  the  country  as  an 
unjustifiable  and  wicked  act,  whether  issued  by  the  War 
Department  or  any  other  authority. 

‘‘  The  natural  tendency  of  the  youth  of  our  country  to 
military  exercises  is  great  enough  already,  and  it  is  cruel  to 
stimulate  in  them  the  art  of  killing  their  fellow-men.” 


CHARLES  E.  JEFFERSON, 

Minister  of  Broadway  Tabernacle,  New  York. 

To  keep  the  peace  we  must  prepare  for  war.’  Some 
one  said  that  long  ago,  and  men  have  repeated  it  as  tho  it  were 
a word  from  the  mouth  of  God.  Its  hollowness  is  evident  to 
any  one  who  will  look  into  it.  The  fact  is  that  to  keep  the 
peace  we  must  prepare  for  peace.  If  you  want  war,  then 
prepare  for  war,  multiply  your  guns,  burnish  them  and  make 
them  shine,  practice  with  them,  keep  the  air  filled  with  the 
reverberations  of  the  roar  of  cannon.  Swing  your  fleet  from  one 
ocean  to  another  just  when  hearts  are  most  irritated.  Fill  your 
newspapers  with  accounts  of  what  your  ships  are  doing,  crowd 
your  magazines  with  pictures  of  torpedo  boats  and  destroyers. 
Set  all  the  young  men  of  the  country  thinking  and  talking  about 
war,  and  then  some  day  war  will  come.  It  is  inevitable  ! If  a 
nation  does  not  want  to  fight  it  must  put  up  its  sword.  It  is 
amazing  that  there  is  an  intelligent  man  on  the  earth  who  can- 
not see  this.” 


12 


3 0112  062155855 


THE  BIDDLE  PRESS 
PRINTERS 

1010  CHERRY  STREET 
PHILADELPHIA 


